AARoads Forum

Is California still planing to ask AASHO to rename CA-58 as an extension of I-40? I know they're still expanding it, especially west of needles.

I was just on CA-58 recently. They're still some work to be done. They seem to be doing some right of way grading for what will be the west bound lanes east of Boron and west of Barstow.

The problem is there is still that 2-lane stretch that needs some massive work down. For the most part, I would suggest they just build a whole new freeway slightly to the north of CA-58 from Boron to Barstow and leave old CA-58 as a two-lane feeder route (therefore, no need for on and off ramps the rest of the way). This also allows US395 to have a full interchange just north of 'four corners'.

Over in the mountainous stretch east of Bakersfield, there's still several intersections that needs to be removed that will be costly. I don't see them doing it any time soon.

Sykotyk

Not sure if they had actually planned on upgrading it, considering the costs to upgrading 58 in the Mojave Pass.

Well, in the mountains the interstates, at least when first built, were given some leeway. Because many places along CA-58 simply have a jersey barrier down the median. No way to widen it with mountains there.

Sykotyk

Couldn't be any worse than the stretch of I-5 north of Yreka.  Last time I was down that way in 2002, the divider between the two sides of the freeway was just paint--no barriers, no physical barriers.

There would be a certain logic with having I-40 go all the way to I-5, but at least the way I perceive things, there are certain California state routes that kind of just have a reputation for being "big deals" on par with US Highways or Interstates as it is.  I'd say CA-58 is in that boat.  I'd also throw CA-89 into the mix as well--it's a sensical way to get to Reno from Medford/Ashland area.

-Alex (Tarkus)

CA 58 to me is very unique.  One thing I ponder, were there plans to extend I-40 west of I-15 in the past but then were dropped?  The reasons I suspect this are as follows. 

* The 13 mile Interstate standard freeway (with a 70 mph speed limit) between Boron and North Edwards.

* The rest area.

* The two freeway (not sure if interstate standard) sections between Bakersfield and Mojave.  Not counting the Mojave bypass because this freeway section is recent.

On a side rant...

* Why did Caltrans leave a gap in freeway between Mojave and Bakersfield?  Why not leave it a freeway?

* Why isn't the speed limit 70 on that stretch?

*Why isn't the speed limit 70 on the Mojave bypass?

I can answer your first question.  According to cahighways.org, Caltrans asked AASHTO to designate CA 58 as an interstate twice -- in 1956 and 1968.  AASHTO rejected the request each time. 

Oh wow, so there were plans way back then.  Hence the freeway sections of CA 58.  Thanks!  I am hopeful that someday CA 58 would become an extension of I-40 (my favorite interstate).

AZDude, I've driven CA-58 several times. I like the road, but it's rather misunderstood:

Quote* The 13 mile Interstate standard freeway (with a 70 mph speed limit) between Boron and North Edwards.

* The rest area.

* The two freeway (not sure if interstate standard) sections between Bakersfield and Mojave.  Not counting the Mojave bypass because this freeway section is recent.

On a side rant...

It'd make sense. CA-58 is a well-trafficked road.

Quote* Why did Caltrans leave a gap in freeway between Mojave and Bakersfield?  Why not leave it a freeway?

This is a rather mountainous stretch of road from just west of Mojave to Bakersfield. There are several intersections that just don't make sense to have an interchange due to limited usage. CA-223 is a direct intersection in a rather tight spot.  CA-223 is a rather hilly stretch of road that bypasses Bakersfield through the town of Arvin (I've been on it) that intersects CA-58 between two hills. It can be done, but the cost is probably not justified.

Quote* Why isn't the speed limit 70 on that stretch?

Again, mountainous grades, curves, etc.

Quote*Why isn't the speed limit 70 on the Mojave bypass?

Not sure, probably to match the old stretch through the Tehachapi Mountains.

They already have a bypass built on the west side of Barstow, and the last time I was there, they do appear to be starting work on adding a second ROW between Boron and Barstow with piles of dirt brought in and laid down next to the existing roadway.

They would just need to build a small bypass around "Four Corners" where US-395 and CA-58 intersect, as well as fix the roadway up near Hinkley/Lenwood. A sharp curve to cross a railroad track and then as it comes into Barstow before the new bypass.

Sykotyk

Thanks skyotyk for your input.   :nod:

Glad that Caltrans is upgrading the road.

If I recall the story correctly, Caltrans wanted to use nuclear bombs to excavate through the Tehachapi Pass. When that didn't pan out, they backed-off on the interstate idea.

The 4-lane expressway/freeway will be a vast improvement between Bakersfield and Barstow. However, I don't know of any serious plans to extend the CA58 to I-5 in the central valley.

Also, CA HSR will run though Mojave and Palmdale, and there's already talk of building a spur to Las Vegas here.

flowmotion: Doesn't one of the Bakersfield belt route plans (mentioned at cahighways.org) include a connector to I-5?

Hi There !!!

You can find information concerning the upgrading of the last two lane stretches of SR 58 between Boron and Barstow at the following links:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr58/kramerjunction/index.htm (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr58/kramerjunction/index.htm)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr58/hinkley/index.htm (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr58/hinkley/index.htm)

Should SR 58 be re-signed as Interstate 40? Personally, I don't care. Should SR 58 be a freeway from Barstow to Bakersfield? Extended west to I-5? Hell yes, I say!!!  :clap:

Chris:  No, none of the Bakersfield freeway improvements extends all the way to I-5.  The furthest west any of them get is about half-way.

Is there even any room through Bakersfield for an extension of the freeway?

No, they'd probably have to multiplex along CA-99 north (as they do currently with CA-58) until there's a suitable area to build a freeway headed west.

Sykotyk

I remember reading somewhere about a possible freeway allignment from 99 to I-5 about 2-3 miles north of the current CA-58 allignment (Rosedale Hwy/Bakersfield-McKittrick Hwy) along 7th Standard Rd.

There are multiple alignments under consideration at this time.

http://www.bakersfieldfreeways.us/ (http://www.bakersfieldfreeways.us/)

tankerdave and rebel049:  Looks like two of the proposed routes seem to correspond to a Route 58 freeway extension west to I-5: the Westside Parkway, and upgrades to the Rosedale Highway.

What I would do is have I-40 multiplex with I-15 to San Bernardino and then take over CA/I- 210 and I-605 to terminate at I-405. I don't think people take I-40 west to take a drive to Fresno.

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 24, 2009, 10:05:54 PM
What I would do is have I-40 multiplex with I-15 to San Bernardino and then take over CA/I- 210 and I-605 to terminate at I-405. I don't think people take I-40 west to take a drive to Fresno.

no, they use it to go up to the bay area via 5 and 580. 

I think California 58 is good enough to do that job. Until California balances its own budget I don't see I-40 being extended to Bakersfield and besides on I-17 , the control cities for I-40 is Albuquerque & Los Angeles.

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 25, 2009, 12:40:10 PM
I think California 58 is good enough to do that job. Until California balances its own budget I don't see I-40 being extended to Bakersfield and besides on I-17 , the control cities for I-40 is Albuquerque & Los Angeles.

it gets pretty inadequate around Kramer's Junction.  Then again, US-395 also needs to be upgraded to a freeway, or at least a four-lane expressway between Adelanto and the junction with the 14 at Brady.

leifvanderwall: control cities really don't have any bearing on where a highway should end up or ends up; in some cases they reflect more the destination of a previous route than the existing interstate (US 66 went to Los Angeles, while I-40 does not come close).

Actually, LA is a shorter distance from Barstow than Bakersfield is and I would think the LA traffic to and from Las Vegas gets pretty heavy on I-15 on the weekends. If they can upgrade CA 58 to interstate standards to Bakersfield and further to US 101 I'd be happy with that, but I think LA is a much more logical place to terminate I-40. Let's do a compromise here: I-40 gets the old 66 route and I-540 gets the old CA 58 corridor. The CA 14 freeway could be a x40 spur also.

leifvanderwall:  California hasn't had any truly long multiplexes since 1964, and having I-40 continue south down I-15 to Ontario would result in a 54-mile corouting, something that would be unlikely for this state these days.  (Plus, I-210/Route 210 and I-15 are already complete for the most part as a freeway route, while Route 58 could honestly use the interstate funding to hasten its upgrade.)

I can't imagine Route 58 west of I-5 ever being upgraded to freeway either, just the segment from Buttonwillow to Barstow.

uh... Rules can change.

Why would they change their longstanding policy just for the sake of allowing a 54 mile concurrency to replace a perfectly good 3di? Especially considering the fact that the CA-58 corridor could use a freeway, and as Jake mentioned, that corridor could be used as a shortcut to the Bay Area from the Southwest...

leifvanderwall: The longest co-routing in California since 1964 has been a partially signed 68 mile multiplex of US 101 and Route 1 between Oxnard and Gaviota (though interrupted by a short segment of Route 1 that uses former US 101 alignment along the coast); but for Interstate routes, the coroutings are extremely short (I-580 and I-80 for approximately 5 miles in Berkeley; I-5 and I-10 for about 2 miles in downtown Los Angeles). 

There's really no reason to have I-40 leave its straight line path to continue down two existing Interstates (I-210 and I-15) for signage purposes only, when the additional funding for an upgrade of an major state route (its importance hinted at by its past life as US 466) could be available via such an extension.

I am thinking that an extension of the CA-58 freeway to I-5 may not be necessary for the extension of I-40 along CA-58.  California is in the process of upgrading all of CA-99 to Interstate standard from I-5 near the Grapevine to Stockton (maybe Sacramento) with the hopes of getting designated as an Interstate (probably I-7, maybe I-9).  If that were to happen and all the upgrades on CA-58 are completed (Kramer Junction bypass, Hinkley bypass, CA-233 intersection, etc) then why not just terminate I-40 at future I-7/I-9 in Bakersfield. 

From a signage point of view, this would make more sense because Bakersfield would become a control city for I-40.  If I-40 were to be extended to I-5, what would the control city be west of Bakersfield?  I-5?  Buttonwillow?  San Francisco?  Sacramento?

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 06, 2009, 05:43:42 PM
From a signage point of view, this would make more sense because Bakersfield would become a control city for I-40.  If I-40 were to be extended to I-5, what would the control city be west of Bakersfield?  I-5?  Buttonwillow?  San Francisco?  Sacramento?

San Francisco would make the most sense.  A lot of drivers would take 40 to 5 to 580.  San Francisco is already an I-5 control city, with San Francisco/Sacramento destination signs all over the Central Valley.

Sacramento - the most direct route would be 99, so drivers would turn north on Bakersfield.

Buttonwillow - well, it's slightly larger than Delaware Water Gap...

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 06, 2009, 05:45:56 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 06, 2009, 05:43:42 PM
From a signage point of view, this would make more sense because Bakersfield would become a control city for I-40.  If I-40 were to be extended to I-5, what would the control city be west of Bakersfield?  I-5?  Buttonwillow?  San Francisco?  Sacramento?

San Francisco would make the most sense.  A lot of drivers would take 40 to 5 to 580.  San Francisco is already an I-5 control city, with San Francisco/Sacramento destination signs all over the Central Valley.

I-205 and Route 120 both have SF as a control city for much the same reason, though neither route gets close to there.  (Same with I-505)

Quote

Buttonwillow - well, it's slightly larger than Delaware Water Gap...

Hey, Needles is used as an I-40 control city the other direction (probably because the next major city would be Flagstaff in any case)...

I don't have a problem with where I-40 ends, I just think the highway's status would be much bigger if it did end in the LA area. I-40 is one of our longest Interstates; I guess Bakersfield which has a population of almost 300,000 could use it. Anybody think California 14 should be a x40 designation?

Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 07, 2009, 07:39:42 PM
I don't have a problem with where I-40 ends, I just think the highway's status would be much bigger if it did end in the LA area. I-40 is one of our longest Interstates; I guess Bakersfield which has a population of almost 300,000 could use it. Anybody think California 14 should be a x40 designation?

If I-40 is extended to Bakersfield, CA-14 could be an x40 interstate but it will NOT be I-140 because CA-140 already exists and is one of the main routes to Yosemite.  Remember, route duplication is not allowed in the California highway system.  Also, Caltrans would have to build a bypass around the east side of Mojave.

Converting CA 14 into an I-x40 is an intriguing idea.  I don't know if the freeway sections are currently interstate-compliant, though.

You're right, I-140 wouldn't work, but I-340 would.  (Or maybe I-540?)

I think that a bypass of Mojave will eventually happen, as recreation traffic between Southern California and the eastern Sierras continues to increase.

Quote from: mapman on October 08, 2009, 02:14:42 AM
Converting CA 14 into an I-x40 is an intriguing idea.  I don't know if the freeway sections are currently interstate-compliant, though.

You're right, I-140 wouldn't work, but I-340 would.  (Or maybe I-540?)

I think that a bypass of Mojave will eventually happen, as recreation traffic between Southern California and the eastern Sierras continues to increase.

"I-540" actually is an intriguing number choice - I've always felt that I-505 and I-580 received that first digit (instead of, say, I-380 and I-305 which were both available at the time) because both routes used to be part of what was the I-5W loop; so in that sense, just as 580 connects both I-5 and I-80, I-540 does the same for I-5 and I-40.

Conjecture on my part...but it does seem that after an initial batch of 3dis (280, 480, 680, 205, 405, 605, 805, 210), the numbering for California's 3di routes became less based on what was immediately available in the sequence (580 coming up before 380 was assigned, 505 before 305 was used, 905 before 705 has even been used, 110 and 710 seeming to inherit their numbers from their state route forebears 11 and 7 respectively).

There is a certain logic to picking 3di's based upon either a previous route number or what routes it would connect to.  That's especially true in modern times, where highways have become such a major part of everyday life and lexicon.  Having some sort of route continuity within a region can ease the confusion of a route renumbering.

Quote from: TheStranger on October 04, 2009, 06:02:06 AM
I-5 and I-10 for about 2 miles in downtown Los Angeles). 

IIRC (and without looking at cahighways.org to verify), the I-5/10 duplex is only in the field; I-10 does not by legislative definition duplex with I-5 and is in fact discontinuous to itself, with a gap along the US 101 portion of the Santa Ana Freeway (and note there is no movements between the Santa Monica - excuse me, Rosa Parks Freeway and US 101). The segment of the San Bernardino Freeway between US 101 and I-5 is unsigned I-10.

Quote from: Bickendan on October 11, 2009, 05:12:12 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on October 04, 2009, 06:02:06 AM
I-5 and I-10 for about 2 miles in downtown Los Angeles). 

IIRC (and without looking at cahighways.org to verify), the I-5/10 duplex is only in the field; I-10 does not by legislative definition duplex with I-5 and is in fact discontinuous to itself, with a gap along the US 101 portion of the Santa Ana Freeway (and note there is no movements between the Santa Monica - excuse me, Rosa Parks Freeway and US 101). The segment of the San Bernardino Freeway between US 101 and I-5 is unsigned I-10.

No co-routing is acknowledged in any of the legislative definitions of routes (except, unintentionally, the unsigned co-routing of Route 271 way up north); pretty much whether two routes or more are co-routed is based entirely on signage (or lack thereof).

what is 271 co-routed with?  101?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 12, 2009, 01:27:59 PM
what is 271 co-routed with?  101?

that would be my assumption, as (going from what I've read - I have never been to that part of the state) 271 is defined as a single-segment route, but has two seperate segments (Cummings-Leggett and Piercy-Cooks Valley) joined by a portion of 101, and a snippet of Route 1.  271 itself is a former routing of 101...

CA 271 is one of several routes that have two separate legs but are not signed in between the two legs. Another example is CA 193, which connects CA 65 and I-80 and also connects CA 49 with Georgetown then travels south to Placerville. It seems some secondary state highways are not signed with concurrent routes, but longer major routes are well-signed. One of the longest such concurrencies (shared alignments) between two highways is CA 108 and CA 120 west of Sonora. I was surprised to see that CA 113 is signed on its shared alignment with I-80, considering CA 113 south of Dixon is a secondary state route.

Andy

Quote from: andy3175 on November 12, 2009, 10:33:00 PM
CA 271 is one of several routes that have two separate legs but are not signed in between the two legs. Another example is CA 193, which connects CA 65 and I-80 and also connects CA 49 with Georgetown then travels south to Placerville.

Route 16 through Sacramento is probably the longest of those types of gaps, though originally that break in signage/routing didn't exist (with Route 16 following Capitol Avenue/Capitol Mall for years); when the freeways were constructed, the gap only existed between the I Street Bridge in downtown to today's Exit 9 off of US 50.  When Route 16 between Woodland and the I Street Bridge was turned to local maintenance, the gap widened significantly and there is no signage at either end of each gap to indicate how to get to the next respective segment...

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 06, 2009, 05:43:42 PM
I am thinking that an extension of the CA-58 freeway to I-5 may not be necessary for the extension of I-40 along CA-58.  California is in the process of upgrading all of CA-99 to Interstate standard from I-5 near the Grapevine to Stockton (maybe Sacramento) with the hopes of getting designated as an Interstate (probably I-7, maybe I-9).  If that were to happen and all the upgrades on CA-58 are completed (Kramer Junction bypass, Hinkley bypass, CA-233 intersection, etc) then why not just terminate I-40 at future I-7/I-9 in Bakersfield. 

From a signage point of view, this would make more sense because Bakersfield would become a control city for I-40.  If I-40 were to be extended to I-5, what would the control city be west of Bakersfield?  I-5?  Buttonwillow?  San Francisco?  Sacramento?

I live in Georgia and have always wondered why I-40 had not been extended (at least) to I-5.  No recent posts on this thread. Any recent noteworthy developments?

Eh, it could be signed as future I-40, but 5 corners (US-395 jct) and some places in the mountains are going to require some upgrades.  I find it interesting that CA-58 is the only highway in the state that uses MUTCD mile markers.  Generally, California uses its own mile marker system that resets by county, but you have to pull off the road and use an electron microscope to read it.

Quote from: Tarkus on March 16, 2009, 03:52:57 PM
Couldn't be any worse than the stretch of I-5 north of Yreka.  Last time I was down that way in 2002, the divider between the two sides of the freeway was just paint--no barriers, no physical barriers.

There would be a certain logic with having I-40 go all the way to I-5, but at least the way I perceive things, there are certain California state routes that kind of just have a reputation for being "big deals" on par with US Highways or Interstates as it is.  I'd say CA-58 is in that boat.  I'd also throw CA-89 into the mix as well--it's a sensical way to get to Reno from Medford/Ashland area.

-Alex (Tarkus)

I drove that a week ago and I can vouch that there's jersey barriers, but I know what you meant.  I went 80 up that hill between CA-3 and CA-96.  I travel between Portland and the Bay Area quite frequently, and I believe they retrofitted I-5 north of Weed back in '06. 

The Siskyou Summit is barely Interstate legal...  It's way too steep, and the runaway truck ramps are placed in retarded places that are steeper than the actual road.

I think now the only freeway in CA with the paved, barrierless median is some sections of US-101 up north.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2010, 08:35:24 PM
I think now the only freeway in CA with the paved, barrierless median is some sections of US-101 up north.

For the time being, I-5 through Red Bluff has no median barrier due to construction (don't know if that counts).  I'm also not sure about CA-70 east of Yuba City. 

I drove 70 a few months ago and didn't notice the absence of a barrier.

I believe the idea behind CalTRANS turning all of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow a freeway is so that one day it will become a westward extension of I-40. Now, I'm curious if CA-58 will be truncated to Bakersfield or if it will remain concurrent with I-40.

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:51:30 AM
I believe the idea behind CalTRANS turning all of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow a freeway is so that one day it will become a westward extension of I-40. Now, I'm curious if CA-58 will be truncated to Bakersfield or if it will remain concurrent with I-40.

Ideally, I think they would want I-40 to end at an Interstate highway (I-5).  Of course, CA-99 is proposed to be an Interstate (I-9), so I-40 ending there wouldn't be too bad (and they could run it concurrent with CA-99 to I-5 if they really wanted to).

Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 31, 2010, 02:01:20 AM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:51:30 AM
I believe the idea behind CalTRANS turning all of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow a freeway is so that one day it will become a westward extension of I-40. Now, I'm curious if CA-58 will be truncated to Bakersfield or if it will remain concurrent with I-40.

Ideally, I think they would want I-40 to end at an Interstate highway (I-5).  Of course, CA-99 is proposed to be an Interstate (I-9), so I-40 ending there wouldn't be too bad (and they could run it concurrent with CA-99 to I-5 if they really wanted to).

That's what I was thinking... The proposed Interstate 9 would run from Wheeler Ridge to Stockton (along CA-4), and then you could either route I-40 further west to Buttonwillow along CA-58 or have it concurrent with CA-99/Future I-9 down to Wheeler Ridge.

I remember at one point in time there was an actual plan to try to bring I-70 to California, possibly to Fresno or Merced. I don't think it's even geographically possible, though.

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:22:40 AM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 31, 2010, 02:01:20 AM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:51:30 AM
I believe the idea behind CalTRANS turning all of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow a freeway is so that one day it will become a westward extension of I-40. Now, I'm curious if CA-58 will be truncated to Bakersfield or if it will remain concurrent with I-40.

Ideally, I think they would want I-40 to end at an Interstate highway (I-5).  Of course, CA-99 is proposed to be an Interstate (I-9), so I-40 ending there wouldn't be too bad (and they could run it concurrent with CA-99 to I-5 if they really wanted to).

That's what I was thinking... The proposed Interstate 9 would run from Wheeler Ridge to Stockton (along CA-4), and then you could either route I-40 further west to Buttonwillow along CA-58 or have it concurrent with CA-99/Future I-9 down to Wheeler Ridge.

I remember at one point in time there was an actual plan to try to bring I-70 to California, possibly to Fresno or Merced. I don't think it's even geographically possible, though.

Nevada shouldn't be a problem, but going through the Sierras is a big issue.  I'd run it through CA-108 and CA-120 into Stockton (perhaps into the Bay Area and replace I-205/I-580 [between Castro V. and Altamont]/I-238 anyone?).  CA-108 can get narrow in spots, and I believe there's a tunnel, so that would be quite a project.

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:22:40 AM


I remember at one point in time there was an actual plan to try to bring I-70 to California, possibly to Fresno or Merced. I don't think it's even geographically possible, though.

I actually don't recall this being anything other than something suggested at roadgeek websites and MTR.  Do yo have any links to documentation of this beyond the speculative stage?

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 11:20:59 AM
I actually don't recall this being anything other than something suggested at roadgeek websites and MTR.  Do yo have any links to documentation of this beyond the speculative stage?

There's no link provided, but California Highways has this: (http://"http://www.cahighways.org/105-112.html#108")

QuoteBack in the sixties, Caltrans wanted to upgrade Route 108 to a freeway all the way over the pass. They had detailed plans drawn up that included a seven mile long tunnel that would start in what is now the Carson Iceberg Wilderness and terminated near the Marine base. The proposal was abandoned due to community opposition.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 11:20:59 AM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:22:40 AM


I remember at one point in time there was an actual plan to try to bring I-70 to California, possibly to Fresno or Merced. I don't think it's even geographically possible, though.

I actually don't recall this being anything other than something suggested at roadgeek websites and MTR.  Do yo have any links to documentation of this beyond the speculative stage?

I don't, I just recall reading about it, probably related to the Route 108 extension that was also proposed.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 11:20:59 AM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:22:40 AM
I remember at one point in time there was an actual plan to try to bring I-70 to California, possibly to Fresno or Merced. I don't think it's even geographically possible, though.

I actually don't recall this being anything other than something suggested at roadgeek websites and MTR.  Do yo have any links to documentation of this beyond the speculative stage?

I can't remember the site I saw it on, but this was actually a proposal. I want to say it was listed in a book of proposals for additions to the Interstate system in the 70s. Nevada DOT either proposed or supported the plan, which would have brought I-70 across Nevada roughly following the US 50 corridor.

Quote from: roadfro on September 02, 2010, 03:20:16 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 11:20:59 AM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:22:40 AM
I remember at one point in time there was an actual plan to try to bring I-70 to California, possibly to Fresno or Merced. I don't think it's even geographically possible, though.

I actually don't recall this being anything other than something suggested at roadgeek websites and MTR.  Do yo have any links to documentation of this beyond the speculative stage?

I can't remember the site I saw it on, but this was actually a proposal. I want to say it was listed in a book of proposals for additions to the Interstate system in the 70s. Nevada DOT either proposed or supported the plan, which would have brought I-70 across Nevada roughly following the US 50 corridor.

If they were to cut through CA-108, it would probably make more sense to follow the US-6 corridor.

Quote from: roadfro on September 02, 2010, 03:20:16 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 11:20:59 AM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:22:40 AM
I remember at one point in time there was an actual plan to try to bring I-70 to California, possibly to Fresno or Merced. I don't think it's even geographically possible, though.

I actually don't recall this being anything other than something suggested at roadgeek websites and MTR.  Do yo have any links to documentation of this beyond the speculative stage?

I can't remember the site I saw it on, but this was actually a proposal. I want to say it was listed in a book of proposals for additions to the Interstate system in the 70s. Nevada DOT either proposed or supported the plan, which would have brought I-70 across Nevada roughly following the US 50 corridor.

Would it have gone through California, or followed Alt US 50 west to end at I-80 in Fernley?  (One very early US highway map had US 50 following Alt 50 there to end at US 40, instead of continuing to Carson City and Sacramento via South Lake Tahoe)

Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 30, 2010, 08:25:32 PM
Eh, it could be signed as future I-40, but 5 corners (US-395 jct) and some places in the mountains are going to require some upgrades.  I find it interesting that CA-58 is the only highway in the state that uses MUTCD mile markers.  Generally, California uses its own mile marker system that resets by county, but you have to pull off the road and use an electron microscope to read it.

Quote from: Tarkus on March 16, 2009, 03:52:57 PM
Couldn't be any worse than the stretch of I-5 north of Yreka.  Last time I was down that way in 2002, the divider between the two sides of the freeway was just paint--no barriers, no physical barriers.

There would be a certain logic with having I-40 go all the way to I-5, but at least the way I perceive things, there are certain California state routes that kind of just have a reputation for being "big deals" on par with US Highways or Interstates as it is.  I'd say CA-58 is in that boat.  I'd also throw CA-89 into the mix as well--it's a sensical way to get to Reno from Medford/Ashland area.

-Alex (Tarkus)

I drove that a week ago and I can vouch that there's jersey barriers, but I know what you meant.  I went 80 up that hill between CA-3 and CA-96.  I travel between Portland and the Bay Area quite frequently, and I believe they retrofitted I-5 north of Weed back in '06. 

They divided the roadway? Aww... I didn't notice driving up (in the dark) back in '08. Now only Montana can claim the undivided interstate :(

The Siskyou Summit is barely Interstate legal...  It's way too steep, and the runaway truck ramps are placed in retarded places that are steeper than the actual road.


[/quote]That is a fun, fun hill to drive.

Quote from: Bickendan on September 04, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
They divided the roadway? Aww... I didn't notice driving up (in the dark) back in '08. Now only Montana can claim the undivided interstate :(

Yeah.  California did a big retrofit project north of Weed, that included repaving the road and adding a median. 

Quote from: Bickendan on September 04, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
That is a fun, fun hill [Siskyou Summit] to drive.

Not when you have a 2000 Mercury Mystique I-4 on a 110º day.  My car didn't really make it up the hill.  :P 

I was going 80 up it with my V6 2002 Nissan Maxima at night, though.  :sombrero:  It's obviously more fun to drive down it, but I wouldn't want to be in a truck with failing brakes, since ODOT placed the runaway truck ramps in awful places.

Quote from: TheStranger on September 02, 2010, 11:04:03 AM

Quote from: roadfro on September 02, 2010, 03:20:16 AM
I can't remember the site I saw it on, but this was actually a proposal. I want to say it was listed in a book of proposals for additions to the Interstate system in the 70s. Nevada DOT either proposed or supported the plan, which would have brought I-70 across Nevada roughly following the US 50 corridor.

Would it have gone through California, or followed Alt US 50 west to end at I-80 in Fernley?  (One very early US highway map had US 50 following Alt 50 there to end at US 40, instead of continuing to Carson City and Sacramento via South Lake Tahoe)

From what I recall, the map only showed a rough estimate of the proposed routing in Nevada only. The impression I got was that the proposed I-70 would follow the US 50 corridor westward through Nevada starting roughly near Ely, going through Fallon and Carson City, and entering California on the south side of Lake Tahoe.

What I saw may have been a scan of the "Yellow Book"...I'm still not sure what site and haven't had time to look.

Quote from: roadfro on September 02, 2010, 03:20:16 AM
I can't remember the site I saw it on, but this was actually a proposal. I want to say it was listed in a book of proposals for additions to the Interstate system in the 70s. Nevada DOT either proposed or supported the plan, which would have brought I-70 across Nevada roughly following the US 50 corridor.

I think you are thinking of Kurumi's site which has a map with 1970 interstate requests that has an I-40 extension to I-5 and a US 50 route from Sacramento to the Utah border:
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/map-isr-1970.jpg (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/map-isr-1970.jpg)

^ That looks like what I remember, thanks!

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 30, 2011, 11:43:09 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 02, 2010, 03:20:16 AM
I can't remember the site I saw it on, but this was actually a proposal. I want to say it was listed in a book of proposals for additions to the Interstate system in the 70s. Nevada DOT either proposed or supported the plan, which would have brought I-70 across Nevada roughly following the US 50 corridor.

I think you are thinking of Kurumi's site which has a map with 1970 interstate requests that has an I-40 extension to I-5 and a US 50 route from Sacramento to the Utah border:
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/map-isr-1970.jpg (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/map-isr-1970.jpg)

Why, then, wasn't the route connected to Cove Fort? That indeed would've made a great western expansion of I-70, but I don't see this happening for decades, what with US 50's reputation as the Loneliest Road in America.

As for CA 58's "freewayization," I too am under the impression that they're doing this for a possible western extension of I-40; have always been for years. I'd prefer that it follow the CA 58 corridor to at least I-5, rather than go into LA via I-15 and I-210; after all, another I-x0 interstate already goes there (I-10). And though I prefer I-7 for the proposed CA 99 upgrade, I-9 works just as well because at least it honors the Route 99 legacy (even with one less "9" in its designation).

Yeah, it seems that from US 395 west to SR 99 SR 58 is above 90% freeway. Doesn't seem like plans have started for anything from I-5 to SR 99 though...

Quote from: rschen7754 on May 10, 2011, 05:52:42 AM
Yeah, it seems that from US 395 west to SR 99 SR 58 is above 90% freeway. Doesn't seem like plans have started for anything from I-5 to SR 99 though...

I believe that's because any planned I-40 extension would likely only travel as far west as Bakersfield. I see little purpose for I-40 to connect to I-5, as it's located in the rural reaches of the Central Valley. This is also why CA-58 west of Buttonwillow has never been proposed to be widened.

EDIT: If CalTRANS did want I-40 to terminate at I-5, though, it could be accomplished via a concurrency with CA-99 from Bakersfield south to Wheeler Ridge.

Quote from: Quillz on May 10, 2011, 06:19:36 PM

Quote from: rschen7754 on May 10, 2011, 05:52:42 AM
Yeah, it seems that from US 395 west to SR 99 SR 58 is above 90% freeway. Doesn't seem like plans have started for anything from I-5 to SR 99 though...

I believe that's because any planned I-40 extension would likely only travel as far west as Bakersfield. I see little purpose for I-40 to connect to I-5, as it's located in the rural reaches of the Central Valley. This is also why CA-58 west of Buttonwillow has never been proposed to be widened.

EDIT: If CalTRANS did want I-40 to terminate at I-5, though, it could be accomplished via a concurrency with CA-99 from Bakersfield south to Wheeler Ridge.

Through that nasty loop ramp at the C-58 and C-99 interchange?  Better that I-40 goes north than south there.

that would be a really awkwardly-shaped hook on the west end of I-40; much worse than its east end!

and yes that old loop ramp is quite substandard

Quote from: Brandon on May 10, 2011, 06:32:08 PM

Quote from: Quillz on May 10, 2011, 06:19:36 PM

Quote from: rschen7754 on May 10, 2011, 05:52:42 AM
Yeah, it seems that from US 395 west to SR 99 SR 58 is above 90% freeway. Doesn't seem like plans have started for anything from I-5 to SR 99 though...

I believe that's because any planned I-40 extension would likely only travel as far west as Bakersfield. I see little purpose for I-40 to connect to I-5, as it's located in the rural reaches of the Central Valley. This is also why CA-58 west of Buttonwillow has never been proposed to be widened.

EDIT: If CalTRANS did want I-40 to terminate at I-5, though, it could be accomplished via a concurrency with CA-99 from Bakersfield south to Wheeler Ridge.

Through that nasty loop ramp at the C-58 and C-99 interchange?  Better that I-40 goes north than south there.

Yeah, and at Wheeler Ridge you'd need to add a ramp from SR 99 south to I-5 north.

A better idea: Why not route future I-40 onto CA 223 to junction I-5?

They'd have to rebuilt that entire route to Interstate standards. Last time I was on it, I recall it being just two lanes wide for most of its length.

Another possibility might be to route I-40's extension to I-5 north along California 99 north of Bakersfield, then west along 46.

There's a difference between Fictional Highways and regular highways. Please, if you want to discuss possible routings, go over to that other board.

The plan for CA 58 between CA 99 and I-5 is as follows:

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x735122832/New-freeway-builds-on-old-alignment

New freeway builds on old alignment
BY GRETCHEN WENNER AND JAMES BURGER, The Bakersfield Californian
Staff writers gwenner@bakersfield.com, jburger@bakersfield.com
Saturday, Apr 17 2010 12:00 PM

Last Updated Saturday, Apr 17 2010 12:00 PM

Years from now, Bakersfield's "freeway to nowhere" will lose its dead end and Highway 58 will carry drivers to Interstate 5.

Not for a long time, though. Decades, probably.

But with the Westside Parkway finally under construction, a dusty old plan that established a freeway alignment from Mohawk Street to I-5 is getting new life. State transportation officials now plan to link that stretch to Highway 58 and one day adopt it into the state system.

The plan is possible because of the former Kern River Freeway alignment, which city and county officials approved in 1991.

If nothing seems duller than a freeway alignment, keep in mind what happens without one.

Take 58's abrupt halt at the Wild West Shopping Center on Real Road, for example.

The notorious dead end evolved in part because a route west wasn't preserved with an official alignment, said Craig Pope, Kern County's roads commissioner.

Hundreds of homes and businesses will now have to be paved over when the California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, eventually selects a route connecting 58 to the eastern tip of the Westside Parkway at Mohawk Street.

When an alignment is in place, planners can prevent development from encroaching on the corridor, Pope said.

That's what happened with what's now the Westside Parkway.

"The use by the city and county of the specific plan line process is allowing the construction of over eight miles of new freeway through a metropolitan area without the taking of one single residence or business," wrote Ted Wright, TRIP program manager for the city of Bakersfield, in an e-mail.

The parkway is actually a segment of the former Kern River Freeway, between Mohawk and Heath Road at Stockdale Highway. Even as Bakersfield grew rapidly in recent years, the freeway's path remained untouched because of the 1991 alignment.

West of Heath Road, the freeway alignment continues -- on paper -- along the north side of the Cross Valley Canal, which runs south of Stockdale Highway. It ends about a half mile west of Enos Lane. Environmental documents currently being drawn up by Caltrans extend the route all the way to I-5.

Caltrans looks at the whole stretch -- from 58 to I-5 -- as a three-part plan it has dubbed the Centennial Corridor Project. (It's a different beast than a former route by the same name once planned for downtown Bakersfield.)

Caltrans officials couldn't say when the environmental reports would be finished, but the process started in fall 2008.

The revival of the old route shows how difficult it is to make new freeways come true.

A few years back, local officials had set aside plans for the controversial Kern River Freeway -- renaming the section between Mohawk and Heath as the Westside Parkway -- and were instead pondering a future I-5 connection along Seventh Standard Road.

But in 2005, former Rep. Bill Thomas secured $630 million in federal highway funds for the metro Bakersfield area. Though the Westside Parkway is being built mostly with state and local funds, the Thomas money dramatically altered regional transportation planning here, bringing together city, county and state officials in the Thomas Roads Improvement Program, or TRIP, offices. That's where the Westside Parkway -- and plans for 58's eventual connection to I-5 -- are being hatched.

Caltrans could, of course, change its mind about building the segments that will connect 58 to I-5. But if the pieces come together, the project's backbone will have been the old Kern River Freeway alignment.

"The county did something right back in the '80s," said Cheryl Casdorph, a planner with Kern County's Planning Department.

On August 2, 2013, the first segment of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield opened to traffic:

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/breaking-news/x1691371030/Westside-Parkway-Bakersfields-first-new-freeway-in-37-years-opens-to-drivers-with-speeches-patriotic-songs-and-a-classic-car-cruise

QuoteWith prophetic and playful words, patriotic songs, the snip of a red ribbon, and a promenade of classic cars, Bakersfield on Friday inaugurated a five-mile, $178 million stretch of the Westside Parkway, the city's first new freeway in 37 years. The entire freeway was open by 12:20 p.m. Friday, following speeches by current and former public officials, presentation of colors by the West High School Navy Junior ROTC Cadets, and a performance of "The Star-Spangled Banner" by students in Liberty High School's band camp.

QuoteThe Parkway begins at Truxtun Avenue in the east, and currently ends at Allen Road in the west, with interchanges at Truxtun Avenue, Mohawk Street, Coffee Road, Calloway Drive, and Allen Road. Planning for it began in the 1980s, with construction starting in 2009. It is the city's first new freeway since the completion of Highway 58 in 1976. Now landscaped with wood chips from the city's solid waste department, the Parkway will receive an estimated $20 million in more permanent – and lush – groundcover once officials find the money. Work began in March on its final, $30.1 million segment, extending the Parkway west to the intersection of Heath Road and Stockdale Highway. That portion is expected to open in 2014. An Environmental Impact Report on the controversial Centennial Corridor freeway segment that will link the Parkway to Highway 58 – southeast of the Parkway's eastern terminus – is expected in late 2013 or early 2014. Ultimately, the entire freeway will connect to Interstate 5.

Regards,
Andy

The Westview Parkway will start off as an unnumbered freeway but is planned to become part of California 58 once adjoining segments are completed:

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x837005773/Ask-The-Californian-Will-the-Westside-Parkway-be-numbered-like-other-freeways

QuoteThe Westside Parkway, from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway/Heath Road, will be a city-owned and operated facility when it first opens later this year. Route numbers are assigned by the state or federal governments for highway and freeway facilities they operate and maintain, so initially there will not be any number associated with the Westside Parkway freeway.

Caltrans is the lead agency for the proposed Centennial Corridor project, which would link State Route 58 east of State Route 99 with the Westside Parkway freeway at Truxtun Avenue.

The Centennial Corridor project would be an extension of State Route 58; so upon approval, this project along with the Westside Parkway would become the new alignment for State Route 58, and the Westside Parkway would become part of the state-owned and operated freeway system.

West of Heath Road, the westerly terminus of the Westside Parkway freeway, traffic would use Stockdale Highway to access Interstate 5; and so along with the Westside Parkway, this portion of Stockdale Highway would then also become designated as State Route 58.

The portion of existing State Route 58 (Rosedale Highway) between Mohawk Street and Allen Road is already operated and maintained by either the city or the county. This portion of the roadway was previously relinquished by Caltrans to the city and county to facilitate the TRIP project to widen Rosedale Highway.

But even with that relinquishment, this portion of the roadway currently remains identified as State Route 58, so there is not any confusion to the traveling public.

Once the Westside Parkway and Stockdale Highway are designated as State Route 58, the remaining un-relinquished portions of the current alignment of State Route 58 between State Route 99 and Interstate 5 would then also become city- and county-operated and maintained roadways (except for the short north-south segment of roadway that State Routes 58 and 43 share, which would remain under state jurisdiction as State Route 43).

Regards,
Andy

Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

Does a bear draw lines on a map in the woods?

Quote from: jfs1988 on August 27, 2013, 01:26:31 AM
Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

Just let the events of Earthquake 10.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_10.5) happen and you'd have I-40 as coast to coast without any construction...

Quote from: jfs1988 on August 27, 2013, 01:26:31 AM
Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

possible, but pointless.  traffic counts on CA-58 are among the absolute lowest in the state. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:01:34 PM

Quote from: jfs1988 on August 27, 2013, 01:26:31 AM
Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

possible, but pointless.  traffic counts on CA-58 are among the absolute lowest in the state. 

Maybe so, but that hasn't stopped the fantasy highway makers from upgrading the Bakersfield-Barstow portion into I-40. Not to mention the added incentive of upgrading CA 99 into I-9 (or I-7, take your pick).

Quote from: Henry on August 27, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Maybe so, but that hasn't stopped the fantasy highway makers from upgrading the Bakersfield-Barstow portion into I-40. Not to mention the added incentive of upgrading CA 99 into I-9 (or I-7, take your pick).

we're talking about different segments.  the Temblor range is west of Bakersfield.  east of Bakersfield, the 58 expressway certainly could use some upgrading... a climbing lane for the slow slow trucks, some left turn at-grades closed off or turned into grade separations, etc. 

Quote from: Henry on August 27, 2013, 01:06:37 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:01:34 PM

Quote from: jfs1988 on August 27, 2013, 01:26:31 AM
Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

possible, but pointless.  traffic counts on CA-58 are among the absolute lowest in the state. 

Maybe so, but that hasn't stopped the fantasy highway makers from upgrading the Bakersfield-Barstow portion into I-40. Not to mention the added incentive of upgrading CA 99 into I-9 (or I-7, take your pick).

Might I suggest you head over to the Fictional Highways board where the idea of extending I-40 to US 101 has been discussed numerous times.

Edit: Never mind.  Looks like you already found the discussions.

What types of signs are currently signed to guide traffic to and fro the Parkway?  My guess is that there should be some sort of signage from the California exit of 99 and perhaps some guide signs along Truxton from Downtown Bakersfield.

Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2013, 12:27:13 PM
What types of signs are currently signed to guide traffic to and fro the Parkway?  My guess is that there should be some sort of signage from the California exit of 99 and perhaps some guide signs along Truxton from Downtown Bakersfield.

The signage directing traffic from Truxtun out of downtown west onto the Parkway starts just past Empire Dr., about a quarter-mile from the Parkway's start (roughly half a mile west of Truxtun & Oak, the nearest major intersection). Two overhead signs directing traffic to the right two lanes of Truxtun.

Currently, there is no signage indicating the Westside Parkway's existence on CA-99, much less how to get there. As you indicate, California Ave would be the most appropriate exit to direct traffic from CA-99 to the WSP.

Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

(Note, if you zoom the Google map of that gap in far enough, it shows the planned routing.)

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on September 23, 2013, 11:02:11 PM
Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

(Note, if you zoom the Google map of that gap in far enough, it shows the planned routing.)

Mike

Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

Two thoughts regarding this:

-As mentioned, the Caltrans preferred alignment goes straight through a neighborhood...would it make more sense to take the Parkway due east (just south of the railroad, taking out what seems to be an industrial office park), then south along CA-99, maybe a dual freeway design, maybe subsuming Oak Street and the businesses along there, but I would think it would be cheaper (and cause less consternation)?

-For the eventual westward extension of the Parkway to I-5, I notice the alignment veers towards the southwest as it approaches I-5. Since I would think most of the traffic using this connection would be coming from the north, or going towards the north (if they were heading south they'd just take CA-99), shouldn't this alignment actually veer towards the northwest?

Quote from: Indyroads on September 24, 2013, 05:07:27 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on September 23, 2013, 11:02:11 PM
Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

(Note, if you zoom the Google map of that gap in far enough, it shows the planned routing.)

Mike

Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

This is just Bakersfield... not full of historical and archeological treasures like old Boston.  Yes, it should have obvious to everyone since I-5 was in the planning stages that a westward extension of CA-58 would be needed.

Quote from: kkt on October 10, 2013, 11:00:43 PM

This is just Bakersfield... not full of historical and archeological treasures like old Boston.  Yes, it should have obvious to everyone since I-5 was in the planning stages that a westward extension of CA-58 would be needed.

IIRC, in 1968, Route 58 between I-5 and I-15 was submitted to the Interstate system but rejected:
http://cahighways.org/itypes.html

Looking at old topographic maps on Historicaerials, the area to the immediate west of today's 58/99 junction was developed some time between 1950 and 1955.  I wonder if anything would have been built west of 99 back in the 1960s had 58 been approved as an Interstate.

Quote from: mgk920 on September 23, 2013, 11:02:11 PM
Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

Sure enough, it looks like a lawsuit to protect those houses is underway:

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x558590944/City-Council-continues-highway-projects-despite-lawsuit-threat

QuoteThe secretary for the Westpark Home Owners Association, a group of residents whose houses would be destroyed if the Centennial Corridor freeway segment is built, threatened the Bakersfield City Council with a lawsuit Wednesday if the project continues.

"If you approve the validation action this evening, we will take you to court," WHOA secretary Marc Caputo told the council as more than 40 Westpark residents sat and listened to council members share their doubts about going into debt to pay Bakersfield's share of the federally funded Thomas Roads Improvement Program.

After more than an hour of debate, the council voted 6-1 to approve a validation action.

Regards,
Andy

Quote from: Indyroads on September 24, 2013, 05:07:27 PM
Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

Shortsightedness, particularly when it comes to infrastructure, is a hallmark of Bakersfield's history.

Quote from: kkt on October 10, 2013, 11:00:43 PM
This is just Bakersfield... not full of historical and archeological treasures like old Boston.

"Just Bakersfield?"

Why I oughta... :pan:

Quote from: BakoCondors on October 23, 2013, 01:01:44 AM

Quote from: Indyroads on September 24, 2013, 05:07:27 PM
Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

Shortsightedness, particularly when it comes to infrastructure, is a hallmark of Bakersfield's history.

Interesting to see some of that analyzed (to a degree) on the Wikipedia article for the West Bakersfield Interchange:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bakersfield_Interchange

This talks about a future Route 178 connector to the Westside Parkway - any planning maps showing this?

Quote from: kkt on October 10, 2013, 11:00:43 PM

Quote from: Indyroads on September 24, 2013, 05:07:27 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on September 23, 2013, 11:02:11 PM
Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

(Note, if you zoom the Google map of that gap in far enough, it shows the planned routing.)

Mike

Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

This is just Bakersfield... not full of historical and archeological treasures like old Boston.  Yes, it should have obvious to everyone since I-5 was in the planning stages that a westward extension of CA-58 would be needed.

But at the end of the day, whether it's Boston, Bakersfield or Boring, Oregon, you're still talking about houses that people are living in. It's always going to be a hot issue, no matter where it is.

I have often thought that while Caltrans likes to number potential extensions to the interstate system as the state road number of the interstate sought for extension like CA 15 and CA 210, then maybe they should follow suit with I-40 and renumber CA 58 between Barstow and CA 99 as CA 40, leaving the existing CA 58 from I-40 west as is. As the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield gets extended to meet I-9 (I am thinking that it will take that long to finish), then number it as CA 40 as well, eventually ending at I-5

If the plan is to eventually call CA 58 Interstate 40, I'd rather they not waste tax dollars on a new set of signs which will only be thrown away.

Quote from: flowmotion on March 22, 2009, 03:25:14 PM
If I recall the story correctly, Caltrans wanted to use nuclear bombs to excavate through the Tehachapi Pass. When that didn't pan out, they backed-off on the interstate idea.

The 4-lane expressway/freeway will be a vast improvement between Bakersfield and Barstow. However, I don't know of any serious plans to extend the CA58 to I-5 in the central valley.

The Westside Parkway is the beginning of the extension westward between CA 99/Future I-9 and I-5. The Centennial Connector will connect the existing interchange between CA 58 and CA 99 to the start of the Westside Parkway in the future. There is strong local opposition of the homeowners in its path though, so expect some lawsuits!

Also, CA HSR will run though Mojave and Palmdale, and there's already talk of building a spur to Las Vegas here.

Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 02:16:09 PM
I have often thought that while Caltrans likes to number potential extensions to the interstate system as the state road number of the interstate sought for extension like CA 15 and CA 210, then maybe they should follow suit with I-40 and renumber CA 58 between Barstow and CA 99 as CA 40, leaving the existing CA 58 from I-40 west as is. As the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield gets extended to meet I-9 (I am thinking that it will take that long to finish), then number it as CA 40 as well, eventually ending at I-5

There are some exceptions to the rule: For example, what is now I-880 was originally CA 17 because (until 1982) there was an I-880 in Sacramento; it is now part of a rerouted I-80, where the original alignment is a Business loop.

Quote from: Henry on November 18, 2013, 02:47:46 PM

There are some exceptions to the rule: For example, what is now I-880 was originally CA 17 because (until 1982) there was an I-880 in Sacramento; it is now part of a rerouted I-80, where the original alignment is a Business loop.

And the Nimitz Freeway was not added to the Interstate system until 1984 (around the same time as 710); the 80/old 880 switch only occurred due to the cancellation of a realigned/upgraded I-80 routing through North Sacramento in 1979. 

There was at least a two year period (1982-1984) where 880 was not in use in California.

Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2013, 03:00:38 PM

Quote from: Henry on November 18, 2013, 02:47:46 PM

There are some exceptions to the rule: For example, what is now I-880 was originally CA 17 because (until 1982) there was an I-880 in Sacramento; it is now part of a rerouted I-80, where the original alignment is a Business loop.

And the Nimitz Freeway was not added to the Interstate system until 1984 (around the same time as 710); the 80/old 880 switch only occurred due to the cancellation of a realigned/upgraded I-80 routing through North Sacramento in 1979. 

There was at least a two year period (1982-1984) where 880 was not in use in California.

To clarify a bit more: I-880 was CA-17 not because 880 was in use somewhere else; it was CA-17 because it had been since 1937, and other than the portion in San Jose that was briefly part of I-280/680, was not even submitted for inclusion in the Interstate system until the 1980s. (Compare this with the Long Beach-Pasadena corridor, which was submitted with the very first batch of Interstate submissions in 1947, although it wasn't approved.)

CA-15 and CA-905 are signed as such because they have already been submitted and accepted into the Interstate system as 139(b) mileage once they are completed to Interstate standards (as has the portion of route 710 south of CA-1).

CA-110 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway (nee Pasadena Freeway) portion) was not submitted for inclusion when the Harbor Freeway portion was; the number of the whole route was changed from 11 to 110 so there would be navigational continuity. And because of the historical nature of the route, it will likely never be upgraded to Interstate standard.

CA-210 has not been submitted for inclusion as yet, so far as I have read.

Quote from: DTComposer on November 18, 2013, 04:48:30 PM


To clarify a bit more: I-880 was CA-17 not because 880 was in use somewhere else; it was CA-17 because it had been since 1937, and other than the portion in San Jose that was briefly part of I-280/680, was not even submitted for inclusion in the Interstate system until the 1980s. (Compare this with the Long Beach-Pasadena corridor, which was submitted with the very first batch of Interstate submissions in 1947, although it wasn't approved.)

Thanks for adding that: I was going to say something similar but wanted to keep my response succinct rather than getting too lengthy. 

Also, 17 was not just the Nimitz Freeway north of San Jose; it also covered today's 580 between the MacArthur Maze and San Rafael (which became an interstate corridor at the same time the Nimitz received its 880 shields, though 580 in Richmond was not complete until the early 1990s).

Quote from: DTComposer on November 18, 2013, 04:48:30 PM

CA-210 has not been submitted for inclusion as yet, so far as I have read.

From CAHighways:

QuoteRemoving interstate status from the former routing between (former) Route 30 and Route 10 (current Route 57), and transferring it to routing from Route 57 to Route 10 in Redlands was submitted to AASHTO in 1998, deferred, resubmitted in 1999, and then withdrawn.

Sounds awfully similar to the saga that Arkansas has had with I-49 over the years.

Quote from: DTComposer on November 18, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
CA-15 and CA-905 are signed as such because they have already been submitted and accepted into the Interstate system as 139(b) mileage once they are completed to Interstate standards (as has the portion of route 710 south of CA-1).

I have seen something similar to this but am wondering where you found this to be the case. Was there approval by FHWA to add these routes as 139(b) mileage? Was this done by some kind of FHWA ruling? I did see something from SANDAG about SR 905 from a late 1990s brochure but nothing more since then.

Regards,
Andy

Quote from: andy3175 on November 18, 2013, 09:29:04 PM

Quote from: DTComposer on November 18, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
CA-15 and CA-905 are signed as such because they have already been submitted and accepted into the Interstate system as 139(b) mileage once they are completed to Interstate standards (as has the portion of route 710 south of CA-1).

I have seen something similar to this but am wondering where you found this to be the case. Was there approval by FHWA to add these routes as 139(b) mileage? Was this done by some kind of FHWA ruling? I did see something from SANDAG about SR 905 from a late 1990s brochure but nothing more since then.

Regards,
Andy

Admittedly, I can only find reference on Dan Faigin's site, which indicates that approval for all three routes as 139(b) mileage was given in October of 1984, but can not find anything on an initial dig through the FHWA site.

Quote from: emory on November 18, 2013, 02:20:56 PM
If the plan is to eventually call CA 58 Interstate 40, I'd rather they not waste tax dollars on a new set of signs which will only be thrown away.

While Caltrans continues to upgrade sections of CA-58, as far as I know, there's no actual "plan" to eliminate all of the remaining grade crossings and apply for an Interstate number.

Extending I-40 is certainly high on the roadgeek fictional highway wishlist, but it could be decades before it even would be considered.

Quote from: flowmotion on November 29, 2013, 03:52:31 PM

Quote from: emory on November 18, 2013, 02:20:56 PM
If the plan is to eventually call CA 58 Interstate 40, I'd rather they not waste tax dollars on a new set of signs which will only be thrown away.

While Caltrans continues to upgrade sections of CA-58, as far as I know, there's no actual "plan" to eliminate all of the remaining grade crossings and apply for an Interstate number.

Extending I-40 is certainly high on the roadgeek fictional highway wishlist, but it could be decades before it even would be considered.

To be quite honest, I don't I-40 will *ever* get extended to Bakersfield via CA-58.  IIRC, the plans for the two bypasses (Hinkley and Kramer Junction) call for a bypass built to expressway standards, not freeway standards meaning that while interchanges are planned, Caltrans may not limit access to the roadway by adjacent property owners.

The extension of I-40 west to Bakersfield will also mean that Caltrans will have to renumber all exits along the current I-40 because the western terminus would move 120 or so miles to the west.

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 29, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
IIRC, the plans for the two bypasses (Hinkley and Kramer Junction) call for a bypass built to expressway standards, not freeway standards meaning that while interchanges are planned, Caltrans may not limit access to the roadway by adjacent property owners.

It appears as if a final alternative for the Kramer Junction Bypass has not yet been decided: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr58/kramerjunction/

Quote
Alternatives Under Consideration
Four build alternatives (Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, and 3) and a no-build alternative (Alternative 4) are under consideration, but a preferred alternative has not been identified. Each of the build alternatives would realign and widen a 13.3‐mile segment of State Route 58 (SR‐58) from 0.4 miles west of the Kern County/San Bernardino County line to a point that is approximately 7.5 miles east of U.S. Route 395 (US‐395) from a two‐lane conventional highway to a four‐lane expressway; and construct a railroad grade separation and an interchange at the SR‐58/US‐395 Junction.

Typical cross sections of the proposed SR‐58 facility under each of the build alternatives would consist of an approximately 400‐foot right‐of‐way, 100‐foot median, 10‐foot outside shoulders, and 5‐ foot inside shoulders. The 0.3‐mile segment of US‐395 adjacent to SR‐58 would be widened from two lanes to four lanes plus a left‐turn lane. Lanes would be 12 feet wide with 8‐foot outside shoulders on a proposed 100‐foot right‐of‐way. Dual crossing structures (one for eastbound vehicles and the other for westbound vehicles) would grade‐separate mainline SR‐58 traffic from US‐395 and would be 151 feet in length and have a total height of 30 feet. The interchange ramps from SR‐58 would have a single merge/diverge lane that transitions to two 12‐foot lanes at the connection to US‐395. Stop signs would be installed at the termini of off‐ramps. An additional set of dual crossing structures would grade‐separate mainline SR‐58 traffic from the BNSF railroad line and would have a maximum length of 611 feet and a height of 21.5 feet.

Unique features of the alternatives under consideration are as follows:

Alternative 1 would be located to the north of the existing SR‐58 and would involve the construction and operation of four diamond ramps at US‐395. TheSR‐58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad line would be located 2.5 miles to the east of Kramer Junction. Implementation of Alternative 1 would meet the project's purpose and need.

Alternative 1A would be located to the north of the existing SR‐58 and would involve the construction and operation of a spread diamond intersection at US‐395. The SR‐58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad line would be located 2.5 miles tothe east of Kramer Junction. Implementation of Alternative 1A would meet the project's purpose and need.

Alternative 2 would be located adjacent to the existing SR‐58 and would involve the construction and operation of four diamond ramps at US‐395. The SR‐58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad line would be located 3.9 miles to the west of Kramer Junction. Implementation of Alternative 2 would meet the project's purpose and need.

Alternative 3 would be located to the north of the existing SR‐58 and would involve the construction and operation of four diamond ramps at US‐395. The SR‐58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad line would be located 2.6 miles to the west of Kramer Junction. Implementation of Alternative 3 would meet the project's purpose and need.

Alternative 4 would not involve any changes to the existing SR-58 facility and would not meet the project's purpose and need.

The EIR is available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr58/kramerjunction/pdf/SR58-Kramer_DEIR-EIS_June_2013_CD.pdf (44 MB)

Regards,
Andy

Thanks for refreshing my memory Andy.

Quote
Alternatives Under Consideration
Four build alternatives (Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, and 3) and a no-build alternative (Alternative 4) are under consideration, but a preferred alternative has not been identified. Each of the build alternatives would realign and widen a 13.3‐mile segment of State Route 58 (SR‐58) from 0.4 miles west of the Kern County/San Bernardino County line to a point that is approximately 7.5 miles east of U.S. Route 395 (US‐395) from a two‐lane conventional highway to a four‐lane expressway; and construct a railroad grade separation and an interchange at the SR‐58/US‐395 Junction.

Judging by the highlighted statement in the above quote it looks like my recollection is correct (unless the no-build alternative is selected).  The Kramer Junction bypass will be an expressway rather than a freeway and thus cannot become a westward extension of I-40 unless further upgrades are made.

Further more, I got this description of the Hinkley Bypass from the Caltrans' website...

QuoteThe California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) plans to widen and realign a portion of State Route 58 (SR-58) from a two-lane conventional highway to a four-lane expressway, extending from approximately 2.4 miles west of Hidden River Road to approximately 0.7 mile east of Lenwood Road, near the unincorporated Community of Hinkley, in San Bernardino County. The expressway would include: 12-foot standard traveled way lanes; 10-foot standard shoulder widths; and a 78-foot-wide median.

Once again, the bypass will be an expressway rather than a freeway making the upgrade of CA-58 to I-40 highly unlikely.

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 30, 2013, 02:38:33 AM
Once again, the bypass will be an expressway rather than a freeway making the upgrade of CA-58 to I-40 highly unlikely.

I agree with all you've written, as the EIR does state expressway with partial access control. The alignment, however, may dictate the number of partial access controlled intersections, as a passageway through Kramers Junction rather than around it might increase the opportunity for non-interchange access points. Having said that, I don't view this project as the end point for how SR 58 will be developed. The expressway alignment will likely have limited development along it (especially if it stays north of Kramers and away from the existing development at that signalized intersection). And given that many expressways statewide have converted to freeway standards over time (not in the initial upgrade, but in subsequent projects) that I think SR 58 could become freeway standards someday, just not initially. I think the reason why Caltrans is focusing on the expressway is just so they can get the needed grade separations with the railroad and US 395. The average person driving through the area won't notice the lack of access control at secondary roads (note how SR 58 is between Boron and Mojave for comparison - there are several uncontrolled access points, but they aren't as noticeable as Kramers Junction is). But I don't think this will preclude a freeway conversion further down the line. Caltrans builds expressways nowadays to allow for easy upgrading ... unlike certain other expressways from decades ago.

Regards,
Andy

Updates on the Centennial Corridor:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/centennial/EnvironmentalDocuments.html

The environmental documents for the Centennial Corridor are now posted online.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Centennial-Corridor-EIR-EIS-available-for-public-viewing-258662291

QuoteThe Centennial Corridor is designed to connect Highway 58 at Real Road with the Westside Parkway. The endgame is to connect Hwy. 58 on the east with Interstate 5 on the west, giving motorists a faster way to cross through the city. But, to do so, the path of the Centennial Corridor would take out numerous homes in the Westpark neighborhood.

For years, neighbors opposed to the project have done battle with the government to keep the corridor from going through their neighborhood or being forced to eventually sell their homes.

Earlier this year, the city secured $165 million from the federal government to start early acquisition of properties that stand in the path of the preferred path of the Centennial Corridor.

Officials plan to go with "Alternative B," among possible Centennial Corridor routes. That would take an extension of Highway 58 west from Highway 99 for about one-half mile along the south side of Stockdale Highway before turning northwest and connecting to the Westside Parkway just east of Mohawk Street.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/study-centennial-corridor-route-through-westpark-least-damaging-to-southwest-bakersfield-050914?autoplay=true

QuoteCalTrans released its draft of the Environmental Impact Review for the proposed Centennial Corridor, and alternate routes.

CalTrans said plan "B," the route through the Westpark neighborhood is the best one because it avoids park land and historical properties.

This route would disrupt 121 businesses and 310 homes.

Every route would affect the Swainson's hawk and kit fox dens, according to the study.

The report said every proposed route would increase pollution and require the loss of homes, businesses and vegetation, impacting Southwest Bakersfield.

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x1042370722/Caltrans-Alternative-B-still-best-Centennial-path

QuoteWith its release Friday of the project's draft Environmental Impact Report, [Caltrans] the state transportation agency found Alternative B would improve traffic throughout metropolitan Bakersfield -- but as currently planned would require the demolition of 200 single-family homes, 110 multiple-family structures and 121 commercial buildings.

Previously, the freeway alternative through southwest Bakersfield was thought to require the demolition of more than 199 single-family homes, 16 multiple-family structures and 36 businesses.

Currently, Caltrans also estimates Alternative B would require 293 full parcel acquisitions, 129 partial parcel acquisitions -- and could displace an estimated 961 people.

The EIR's release -- 15 months late because working with state and federal agencies took longer than expected -- expands earlier demolition numbers by nearly 50 percent.

However, a Caltrans officials said those figures could come down once the EIR is approved.

QuoteAlternative B's recommended path would have "adverse effects to the character of ... southwest Bakersfield and (the) Westpark neighborhood," which it would bisect, the EIR says.

It also would raise noise levels above the generally acceptable 62-70 decibel range in 484 outdoor areas, which Cox-Kovacevich said can be mitigated with soundwalls and landscaping.

With the entire state in the grips of a drought, Caltrans is considering moving to Arizona-style hardscape for future freeways. Centennial Corridor, though, would get actual, albeit drought-resistant, landscaping.

Caltrans has considered Alternatives A and C to be unfeasible since December 2012.

Alternative A, a connector southwest of Alternative B, would affect Rancho Vista Historic District. Alternative C, a connector slightly to the northeast of B, would impact Saunders Park.

Both the park and the historic district are protected under Federal Highway Administration guidelines.

Alternative A would demolish the most structures, and at $691 million in right-of-way and construction costs is the most expensive.

Alternative C has the fewest demolitions, but at $665.5 million for right-of-way and construction is the second most expensive proposal.

If either is moved to avoid historic houses or the park, it effectively becomes Alternative B, the cheapest choice at $570 million for right-of-way and design -- although Cox-Kovacevich said it wasn't picked for its cost.

Thanks for the update.

^^

Very interesting.  When was the last time when such a large chunk of a fairly recently built-out, intact and stable neighborhood was acquired for building a new highway or other major infrastructure project?

When is the expected start of construction for that section?

Mike

I have mixed feelings about this project.  While I would personally benefit from the new freeway when I make my trips to Vegas from the S.F. Bay Area, I'm not in favor of plowing through an established neighborhood to plunk down a new freeway that would displace almost 1,000 people.  :no:

Quote from: myosh_tino on May 12, 2014, 03:31:53 PM
While I would personally benefit from the new freeway when I make my trips to Vegas from the S.F. Bay Area, I'm not in favor of plowing through an established neighborhood to plunk down a new freeway that would displace almost 1,000 people.  :no:

Freeways are a double-edged sword: They facilitate transportation and allow heavy traffic volumes to move from point A to point B much faster than conventional roads, but at the cost of millions and billions of dollars as well as displacing hundreds of families.

I don't know much about the area, but my opinion is if it's "needed" then it should be built - but I agree with myosh_tino saying that demolishing an entire neighborhood of homes is not okay.

It's deeply regrettable that Bakersfield didn't plan for a freeway connection there.  it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed, and back then it could have been built at the edge of the urbanized area for peanuts.  if you can't build it, at least reserve the ROW.

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2014, 10:21:04 PM
it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 01:29:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2014, 10:21:04 PM
it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

Good point!  Construction on the Central Valley portion of I-5 didn't start until the early 1960's and the portion from CA-152 to CA-99 didn't open to traffic until 1972.  I'm pretty sure by that time, it was far too late to acquire right-of-way for a future freeway extending west from the 99/58 interchange to I-5.

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 01:29:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2014, 10:21:04 PM
it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

You're right.  Though even so, you'd want a freeway or expressway connecting to the coast from Bakersfield.

Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2014, 10:15:37 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 01:29:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2014, 10:21:04 PM
it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

You're right.  Though even so, you'd want a freeway or expressway connecting to the coast from Bakersfield.

I would think US-466 (today's CA-46) was and would have been the preferred route to the coast, had CA-99 ended up as I-5.

Quote from: DTComposer on May 13, 2014, 12:30:51 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2014, 10:15:37 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 01:29:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2014, 10:21:04 PM
it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

You're right.  Though even so, you'd want a freeway or expressway connecting to the coast from Bakersfield.

I would think US-466 (today's CA-46) was and would have been the preferred route to the coast, had CA-99 ended up as I-5.

Yes, but even then 99 was crowded and it would be better to route westbound traffic directly west rather than north first.

Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2014, 12:56:31 PM

Quote from: DTComposer on May 13, 2014, 12:30:51 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2014, 10:15:37 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 01:29:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2014, 10:21:04 PM
it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

You're right.  Though even so, you'd want a freeway or expressway connecting to the coast from Bakersfield.

I would think US-466 (today's CA-46) was and would have been the preferred route to the coast, had CA-99 ended up as I-5.

Yes, but even then 99 was crowded and it would be better to route westbound traffic directly west rather than north first.

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 03:58:32 PM

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

In that light, it's interesting that California twice used Interstate funds to create long mainline new-terrain route bypasses (5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy, 15 from Corona to Devore) in a short period of time, instead of keeping the designation on their originally proposed corridors that are in the process of being upgraded to full freeway standards (99) or have since been upgraded (historic 395/15E, current 215). 

The 78/22 situation in Allentown/Bethlehem seems to be one of the few parallels to this phenomenon, and that was more an issue of being unable to come up with a viable way to connect the New Jersey section of I-78 with the Lehigh Valley Thruway.

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 04:37:12 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 03:58:32 PM

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

In that light, it's interesting that California twice used Interstate funds to create long mainline new-terrain route bypasses (5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy, 15 from Corona to Devore) in a short period of time, instead of keeping the designation on their originally proposed corridors that are in the process of being upgraded to full freeway standards (99) or have since been upgraded (historic 395/15E, current 215). 

It's a reasonable decision.  Build I-5 up the west valley, where land is cheap and it's easy to get a right of way suitable for a 70 mph speed limit.  Upgrading 99 has been a slow process, involving lots of utility and overpass relocation and closure of side streets and substandard entrances and exits.

Hm, maybe it would have made more sense if I-5 in the west valley had been part of I-580 and 99 turned into I-5.

Bring back US 99!

Rick

Quote from: nexus73 on May 14, 2014, 12:01:42 PM
Bring back US 99!

Why stop there?  Get rid of interstate numbers, restore the U.S. numbers, and rely on people seeing the thick lines on the map to find freeways.

Quote from: kkt on May 14, 2014, 01:30:06 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 04:37:12 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 03:58:32 PM

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

In that light, it's interesting that California twice used Interstate funds to create long mainline new-terrain route bypasses (5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy, 15 from Corona to Devore) in a short period of time, instead of keeping the designation on their originally proposed corridors that are in the process of being upgraded to full freeway standards (99) or have since been upgraded (historic 395/15E, current 215). 

It's a reasonable decision.  Build I-5 up the west valley, where land is cheap and it's easy to get a right of way suitable for a 70 mph speed limit.  Upgrading 99 has been a slow process, involving lots of utility and overpass relocation and closure of side streets and substandard entrances and exits.

Hm, maybe it would have made more sense if I-5 in the west valley had been part of I-580 and 99 turned into I-5.

Another way I could have seen this working a bit better is if the 1950s/1960s I-5W designation to the Bay Area had included much of the West Side Freeway to Wheeler Ridge, too. 

I know the last stoplight on 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento (Livingston) was finally bypassed in 1997, but hadn't the entire road been at least a 4-lane expressway of some sort from the 1960s on?  I don't think it was quite as insane as the pre-1992 stoplight on 101 in Santa Barbara (which wasn't bypassed, but rather, eliminated via new interchange construction).

Quote from: TheStranger on May 14, 2014, 05:38:04 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 14, 2014, 01:30:06 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 04:37:12 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 03:58:32 PM

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

In that light, it's interesting that California twice used Interstate funds to create long mainline new-terrain route bypasses (5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy, 15 from Corona to Devore) in a short period of time, instead of keeping the designation on their originally proposed corridors that are in the process of being upgraded to full freeway standards (99) or have since been upgraded (historic 395/15E, current 215). 

It's a reasonable decision.  Build I-5 up the west valley, where land is cheap and it's easy to get a right of way suitable for a 70 mph speed limit.  Upgrading 99 has been a slow process, involving lots of utility and overpass relocation and closure of side streets and substandard entrances and exits.

Hm, maybe it would have made more sense if I-5 in the west valley had been part of I-580 and 99 turned into I-5.

Another way I could have seen this working a bit better is if the 1950s/1960s I-5W designation to the Bay Area had included much of the West Side Freeway to Wheeler Ridge, too. 

I know the last stoplight on 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento (Livingston) was finally bypassed in 1997, but hadn't the entire road been at least a 4-lane expressway of some sort from the 1960s on?  I don't think it was quite as insane as the pre-1992 stoplight on 101 in Santa Barbara (which wasn't bypassed, but rather, eliminated via new interchange construction).

Last year and apparently continuing into this year is the project that will eliminate the last 99 expressway segment by Chowchilla and turn it into freeway.  There were other expansion projects on freeway 99 going on too. 

Rick

Quote from: kkt on May 14, 2014, 01:04:25 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on May 14, 2014, 12:01:42 PM
Bring back US 99!

Why stop there?  Get rid of interstate numbers, restore the U.S. numbers, and rely on people seeing the thick lines on the map to find freeways.

Not if the map was made by Gousha!  I always liked their use of green (tollways), gold (expressways) and red (freeways) with the three black lines to delineate a divided highway of one of these types.

Rick

Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 04:37:12 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 03:58:32 PM

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

In that light, it's interesting that California twice used Interstate funds to create long mainline new-terrain route bypasses (5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy, 15 from Corona to Devore) in a short period of time, instead of keeping the designation on their originally proposed corridors that are in the process of being upgraded to full freeway standards (99) or have since been upgraded (historic 395/15E, current 215). 

The 78/22 situation in Allentown/Bethlehem seems to be one of the few parallels to this phenomenon, and that was more an issue of being unable to come up with a viable way to connect the New Jersey section of I-78 with the Lehigh Valley Thruway.

I would draw a better parallel on this with the US 41 v. US 141 between Milwaukee and Green Bay interstate routing thing here in Wisconsin.  US 41 has always been far and away the busier of the two, but many years ago the US 141 routing was chosen for an interstate to Green Bay due to it being far cheaper and faster to develop.  The last part of I-43 opened in the late 1970s while only now, after all of those decades of near constant upgrades, is US 41 being deemed fit to be promoted into a full interstate ('I-41').

Mike

I never understood why CA-58 was kept on the Rosedale Hwy corridor once the CA-58 freeway reached CA-99.  From CA-99, Rosedale requires a jog to reach I-5, but Stockdale is a straight shot, plus it was very close to the end of the 58 freeway.

And at that time, even if it may seem like "overdoing it" to turn Stockdale into a grade-separated corridor, they could have at least made it into a Calfornia expressway: 2 lanes each direction, wide median, significant set aside of ROW to prevent business encroachment on the corridor.

Update on the Centennial Corridor from 11/7/2014:

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x1143262827/Judge-to-rule-on-city-plan-to-finance-freeways

QuoteAttorneys for Bakersfield and the West Park Home Owners Association [WHOA] offered differing views in court Friday on whether the city should be able to borrow $240 million for major road projects, then use gas tax, utility surcharge and transportation impact fees to repay it. Bakersfield will need the money to pay its share of major Thomas Roads Improvement Program projects, including the controversial Centennial Corridor link from the Westside Parkway to Highway 58. One possible way to borrow it would be through a federal Department of Transportation loan, which offers later payments and a lower interest rate. But first, the city needs a Kern County Superior Court judge to "validate" whether utility surcharge revenue, gas tax funds and transportation impact fees are appropriate sources to pay back the money. Attorneys argued whether the three funds used to repay the debt are "special funds" and therefore exempt Bakersfield from a constitutional requirement that voters approval it borrowing the money. They also discussed whether there's a state-required "nexus" that the projects be funded with money the roads generate.

QuoteIt's unclear exactly how long his ruling will take, but attorney Robert Brumfield, who also represents WHOA, said he expects a decision within 90 days.

More on the Centennial Corridor in Bakersfield ... update on the lawsuit over the proposed connector between SR 58 and existing Westside Parkway:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/12/highway-plan-has-kern-county-up-in-arms.htm

QuoteBAKERSFIELD, Calif. (CN) - Hundreds of people will lose their homes and businesses and air quality will go from bad to worse if a state project to connect State Route 58 with Interstate 5 goes forward, Bakersfield residents claim in court.

     Concerned Citizens about Centennial Corridor sued the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in Kern County Court on Friday, alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

     Kern County, the city of Bakersfield, and the Kern Council of Governments are named as real parties in interest.

     "It's not every day that you see new freeways being constructed. The era of new freeway building in California is at an end - except in Bakersfield," plaintiff's attorney Jamie Hall told Courthouse News. ...

     A total of 121 businesses and 310 housing units will be demolished for the Centennial Corridor, plus acres of farmland and wetlands.

     Building a new freeway in an area with some of the worst air quality in the nation is highly "suspect," Hall said. ...

     The proposed Centennial Corridor would extend State Route 58 roughly 1.7 miles from its intersection with State Route 99 across the Kern River to the Westside Parkway and ultimately Interstate 5 as part of the Thomas Roads Improvement Plan, which was implemented to address rapid population growth and to "relieve the stress of outdated infrastructure," according to the complaint.

     According to the state webpage about the project, extending State Route 58 has been studied for two decades, but opposition to a connection to the Westside Parkway killed the project until recently.

     In 2005, the National Corridor Infrastructure Act established a program to earmark federal funds for corridor projects that would, among other things, promote regional economic growth, facilitate interregional trade and reduce congestion on existing highways. The Centennial Corridor received $300 million under this program.

     Though the environmental impact report identified two alternate routes and a "no build" alternative that would have fewer environmental impacts, Caltrans rejected the other routes as more expensive and less feasible than Alternative B, Caltrans' preferred option, and the no-project alternative for being unable to meet the area's transportation needs, according to the complaint.

     The plaintiffs submitted comments opposing the project when the draft environmental report was circulated for public review from May to July 2014. Rather than address those comments in a revised report, the plaintiffs say, Caltrans prepared responses that were published in the final report in early December 2015 - a day after Caltrans officially approved the project.

     The plaintiffs claim the final report violates CEQA's mandate to completely analyze all environmental impacts, and fell especially short in its treatment of air quality.

     Bakersfield is surrounded on all sides by mountains, creating a bowl that traps air pollutants such as soot and ozone. Coupled with the area's typically warm weather, the city is usually suffocating under a thick blanket of smog.

Although it would be hugely expensive, how about connecting the Westside Parkway with SR 99 via a tunnel? That way far fewer homes and businesses would have to be plowed down.

I think the article is misleading in that there are no new farmlands or wetland to be impacted that have not already been impacted.  And does not the parkway already cross the Kern?  I have been thought the neighborhood around 2003, it was pretty dumpy.

Although I sympathize with West Park's residents' desire not to lose their homes or businesses, the case against building seems like a stretch here.  A tunnel would cost billions, and we're not talking about Yosemite levels of natural beauty or downtown Boston levels of cultural and historical significance.  As Armourereric posted the bridge over the Kern has already been built.  Loss of farmland would occur if and when the Parkway is extended towards I-5, not the current connection project from CA 58 to the Parkway.
As far as air quality, it might actually improve if traffic can move at steady speeds instead of stop 'n go through traffic lights.

Quote from: nexus73 on May 14, 2014, 12:01:42 PM
Bring back US 99!

Rick

I am 100% in favor of this!

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 19, 2016, 09:10:08 PM
I think the article is misleading in that there are no new farmlands or wetland to be impacted that have not already been impacted.  And does not the parkway already cross the Kern?  I have been thought the neighborhood around 2003, it was pretty dumpy.

It still is. 58 dead-ends into a dilapidated strip mall. The residential areas around it are early-1950s suburban-bleh homes that for the most part, are still on county land (not within the Bakersfield city limits). A fair number of curbless streets and dirt sidewalks. The Westpark neighborhood is the only nicer part of the area between the 99 and California Ave. Those are the folks fighting the hardest to stop the Centennial Corridor from being built.

ADD: One correction to the story: We are surrounded on three sides by mountains, not all four sides. We are an armpit, not a blocked colon

I question the need for I-40 extension from Barstow CA (the junction with I-15) to either Bakersfield with CA route 99 or all the way to Buttonwillow on I-5. Is there any high traffic flow on CA route 58? And I been on the very route a few times as a teen on family road trips to Bakersfield and beyond (to Central and Northern CA). A section of CA route 58 starting in the Kern-SB county line was upgraded into a freeway and a new freeway segment was build bypassing the town of Mojave, as well another segment bypassing the town of Tehachapi. There is some need for a new route with more lanes and less stops, but not sure about renaming that I-40.

Quote from: Mike D boy on January 26, 2016, 10:22:57 PM
I question the need for I-40 extension from Barstow CA (the junction with I-15) to either Bakersfield with CA route 99 or all the way to Buttonwillow on I-5. Is there any high traffic flow on CA route 58? And I been on the very route a few times as a teen on family road trips to Bakersfield and beyond (to Central and Northern CA). A section of CA route 58 starting in the Kern-SB county line was upgraded into a freeway and a new freeway segment was build bypassing the town of Mojave, as well another segment bypassing the town of Tehachapi. There is some need for a new route with more lanes and less stops, but not sure about renaming that I-40.

Depends.

I believe CA-58 is an important trucking route as it avoids having to enter the Los Angeles Basin to reach central and northern California.  I make the drive to Las Vegas a couple of times a year from the S.F. Bay Area and I do see a significant amount of truck traffic on CA-58.  Upgrading the 2-lane portions of CA-58 is sorely needed to improve capacity and safety of the corridor.  Thankfully, the Hinkley segment is currently being upgraded to a 4-lane expressway and should be open in a year or so.

Now, with that said, I do not see a need to route I-40 over CA-58 for a couple of reasons.

1. Once upgrades at Hinkley and Kramer Junction are completed, the entire route from Bakersfield to Barstow will be a divided 4-lane highway but there remains some portions that have at-grade intersections.  Those would need to be eliminated.

2. Exit numbering would need to be completely overhauled since the western terminus would move from Barstow to Bakersfield (or beyond) unless Caltrans introduces negative exit numbers (-1, -2, etc).

California has AADT counts online.  CA 58's AADT is in the 18000-20000 range west of CA 14 and 10000-12000 east of US 395.  Truck percentage in the 30% to 38% range, peaking at 48% at the intersection with US 395.  That's a lot of trucks, more than I even expected and definitely warrants an interstate IMHO.

58 to 40 functions as the all-weather outlet for trucks to/from the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, and central valley produce.
Some go over Donner Pass (I-80) but it takes more gas going up the hill and there's the risk of delays due to closure.

Bring back the 466!

...But seriously, I have been using the 14->58 corridor as an alternative to taking the 101->134->210->15 to reach Barstow (and Vegas), and I'm finding it faster. Less congestion, and the majority of the 58 being up to freeway standards now.

Update on the Centennial Corridor, now pegged at a cost of $306 million to construct Alternative B:

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/2016/03/03/city-beat-the-latest-scoop-on-municipal-government-14.html

QuotePublic Works Director Nick Fidler told the Bakersfield City Council on Wednesday about demolitions to make way for Centennial Corridor.

Centennial Corridor is the Caltrans-approved freeway link between Highway 58 and the Westside Parkway.

To date, Bakersfield has purchased 147 of 199 single-family homes it needs to build the freeway; eight of nine multi-family homes such as apartment buildings; and nine of 18 commercial and industrial properties.

Fidler said in an interview demolitions won't start happening until later this year but Bakersfield will start looking for a contractor very soon.

"We'll start advertising the project, I would assume, next week,"  Fidler said, referring to an invitation for contractors to bid.

Don Anderson, Bakersfield's real property manager, said vacant properties will be demolished first – but in groupings, to make the process as efficient as possible.

The first two buildings to come down will be an office building at 3403 Stockdale Highway and a vacant apartment building at 25 Williamson Way where police and code enforcement have visited 13 times in six months.

Quote from: andy3175 on March 24, 2016, 01:05:01 AM
Update on the Centennial Corridor, now pegged at a cost of $306 million to construct Alternative B:

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/2016/03/03/city-beat-the-latest-scoop-on-municipal-government-14.html

QuotePublic Works Director Nick Fidler told the Bakersfield City Council on Wednesday about demolitions to make way for Centennial Corridor.

Centennial Corridor is the Caltrans-approved freeway link between Highway 58 and the Westside Parkway.

To date, Bakersfield has purchased 147 of 199 single-family homes it needs to build the freeway; eight of nine multi-family homes such as apartment buildings; and nine of 18 commercial and industrial properties.

Fidler said in an interview demolitions won’t start happening until later this year but Bakersfield will start looking for a contractor very soon.

“We’ll start advertising the project, I would assume, next week,” Fidler said, referring to an invitation for contractors to bid.

Don Anderson, Bakersfield’s real property manager, said vacant properties will be demolished first — but in groupings, to make the process as efficient as possible.

The first two buildings to come down will be an office building at 3403 Stockdale Highway and a vacant apartment building at 25 Williamson Way where police and code enforcement have visited 13 times in six months.

I still find this to be fascinating, an approved and under way new-ROW urban freeway project requiring the mass acquisition and demolition of an intact city neighborhood.  Aside from the not yet approved I-49 between I-20 and I-220 in Shreveport, LA (unlike in Bakersfield, this one is proposed to pass through a severely blighted area), when was the last time that something like this was done anywhere in the USA?

Mike

The current CA-4 extension in Stockton also included a new right-of-way through a built-up area. The Grand Parkway (SH 99) around Houston also ran through an existing neighborhood with trailer homes.

I find it interesting to compare and contrast this project with the failed I-105 extension to its parent. I think there are factors that lead toward why one would be developed and the other not, like demographics, timing (I don't think 58 would have gone through during the housing boom which has written much of Bakersfield's recent history), location, and importance to the system as a whole. I think you could write a whole thesis on why one is happening and the other didn't and never will.

This has probably already been mentioned, but will CA 58 be rerouted onto Stockdale Highway once this is done? I'm curious because, having driven both Rosedale and Stockdale Highways, I don't know that the latter is up to state highway standards.

Quote from: coatimundi on March 28, 2016, 11:55:35 AM
I find it interesting to compare and contrast this project with the failed I-105 extension to its parent. I think there are factors that lead toward why one would be developed and the other not, like demographics, timing (I don't think 58 would have gone through during the housing boom which has written much of Bakersfield's recent history), location, and importance to the system as a whole. I think you could write a whole thesis on why one is happening and the other didn't and never will.

This has probably already been mentioned, but will CA 58 be rerouted onto Stockdale Highway once this is done? I'm curious because, having driven both Rosedale and Stockdale Highways, I don't know that the latter is up to state highway standards.

Supposedly it will as far as I-5 and I guess that 58 is going to multiplex up to it's current alignment?  Caltrans is pretty big on getting that gap to I-5 and CA 99 closed with a freeway, I can't imagine Stockdale Highway is going to be in it's current form very long once the 99 gap is finished.

Quote from: kkt on January 27, 2016, 12:49:57 AM
California has AADT counts online.  CA 58's AADT is in the 18000-20000 range west of CA 14 and 10000-12000 east of US 395.  Truck percentage in the 30% to 38% range, peaking at 48% at the intersection with US 395.  That's a lot of trucks, more than I even expected and definitely warrants an interstate IMHO.

58 to 40 functions as the all-weather outlet for trucks to/from the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, and central valley produce.
Some go over Donner Pass (I-80) but it takes more gas going up the hill and there's the risk of delays due to closure.

Agreed, but as many of us (myself included) have stated before, a good consolation for an I-40 extension is to just renumber CA-58 as CA-40 for the sake of continuity.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2016, 12:42:20 PM

Quote from: coatimundi on March 28, 2016, 11:55:35 AM
I find it interesting to compare and contrast this project with the failed I-105 extension to its parent. I think there are factors that lead toward why one would be developed and the other not, like demographics, timing (I don't think 58 would have gone through during the housing boom which has written much of Bakersfield's recent history), location, and importance to the system as a whole. I think you could write a whole thesis on why one is happening and the other didn't and never will.

This has probably already been mentioned, but will CA 58 be rerouted onto Stockdale Highway once this is done? I'm curious because, having driven both Rosedale and Stockdale Highways, I don't know that the latter is up to state highway standards.

Supposedly it will as far as I-5 and I guess that 58 is going to multiplex up to it's current alignment?  Caltrans is pretty big on getting that gap to I-5 and CA 99 closed with a freeway, I can't imagine Stockdale Highway is going to be in it's current form very long once the 99 gap is finished.

Quote from: Rover_0 on March 28, 2016, 04:33:00 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 27, 2016, 12:49:57 AM
California has AADT counts online.  CA 58's AADT is in the 18000-20000 range west of CA 14 and 10000-12000 east of US 395.  Truck percentage in the 30% to 38% range, peaking at 48% at the intersection with US 395.  That's a lot of trucks, more than I even expected and definitely warrants an interstate IMHO.

58 to 40 functions as the all-weather outlet for trucks to/from the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, and central valley produce.
Some go over Donner Pass (I-80) but it takes more gas going up the hill and there's the risk of delays due to closure.

Agreed, but as many of us (myself included) have stated before, a good consolation for an I-40 extension is to just renumber CA-58 as CA-40 for the sake of continuity.

Yes, I think that it would be a good way to go.

Quote from: Henry on March 29, 2016, 10:36:54 AM

Quote from: Rover_0 on March 28, 2016, 04:33:00 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 27, 2016, 12:49:57 AM
58 to 40 functions as the all-weather outlet for trucks to/from the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, and central valley produce.
Some go over Donner Pass (I-80) but it takes more gas going up the hill and there's the risk of delays due to closure.

Agreed, but as many of us (myself included) have stated before, a good consolation for an I-40 extension is to just renumber CA-58 as CA-40 for the sake of continuity.

Yes, I think that it would be a good way to go.

Could be a good way to go. But it's not a route number continuity issue as things stand now, since 58 & 40 do not form a continuous highway mainline at I-15.

Quote from: roadfro on March 29, 2016, 11:05:18 AM

Quote from: Henry on March 29, 2016, 10:36:54 AM

Quote from: Rover_0 on March 28, 2016, 04:33:00 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 27, 2016, 12:49:57 AM
58 to 40 functions as the all-weather outlet for trucks to/from the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, and central valley produce.
Some go over Donner Pass (I-80) but it takes more gas going up the hill and there's the risk of delays due to closure.

Agreed, but as many of us (myself included) have stated before, a good consolation for an I-40 extension is to just renumber CA-58 as CA-40 for the sake of continuity.

Yes, I think that it would be a good way to go.

Could be a good way to go. But it's not a route number continuity issue as things stand now, since 58 & 40 do not form a continuous highway mainline at I-15.

And the two routes were never a continuation of the same number.  In pre-freeway days, there were 3 highways going through Barstow:

US 66:  Needles - Barstow - San Bernardino
US 466:  Las Vegas - Barstow - Bakersfield
US 91: Las Vegas - Barstow - San Bernardino

Through town, US 66 followed what you now see on Google Maps as being: "National Trails Highway", the I-40 ROW, and Main Street through central Barstow.  US 466 followed a parallel alignment following "Yermo Rd", the I-15 ROW, and "Old Hwy 58".  The roadway passed through North Barstow.  It was parallel and came within 1/2 mile of US 66, but never intersected with it.  US 91 followed the US 466 routing, turned on 1st Ave, and then turned on Main Street to continue to San Bernardino.

Of course, maps that weren't so fine tuned showed US 466 as following US 66's east-west trajectory to reach Bakersfield, as US 66 turned to the southwest to reach San Bernardino, but there never was any such grand intersection like this.  People would definitely make the connection by using 1st Ave, though, as the family in "Grapes of Wrath" and other "Okies" of course made this connection.

Even in the more modern era, I-40 does not have a direct exit to I-15 north.  So one could not travel from I-40 to old  CA-58 without encountering a stoplight until the modern CA-58 expressway was completed.  Of course now with the modern 58, it's possible and if the rest of 58 were upgraded to a freeway, there would be no problem with extending I-40 to reach I-5.  (With a short multiplex at I-15.)

But there is no rush right now.

Quote from: mrsman on March 30, 2016, 06:13:32 AM

Quote from: roadfro on March 29, 2016, 11:05:18 AM

Quote from: Henry on March 29, 2016, 10:36:54 AM

Quote from: Rover_0 on March 28, 2016, 04:33:00 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 27, 2016, 12:49:57 AM
58 to 40 functions as the all-weather outlet for trucks to/from the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, and central valley produce.
Some go over Donner Pass (I-80) but it takes more gas going up the hill and there's the risk of delays due to closure.

Agreed, but as many of us (myself included) have stated before, a good consolation for an I-40 extension is to just renumber CA-58 as CA-40 for the sake of continuity.

Yes, I think that it would be a good way to go.

Could be a good way to go. But it's not a route number continuity issue as things stand now, since 58 & 40 do not form a continuous highway mainline at I-15.

And the two routes were never a continuation of the same number.  In pre-freeway days, there were 3 highways going through Barstow:

US 66:  Needles - Barstow - San Bernardino
US 466:  Las Vegas - Barstow - Bakersfield
US 91: Las Vegas - Barstow - San Bernardino

Through town, US 66 followed what you now see on Google Maps as being: "National Trails Highway", the I-40 ROW, and Main Street through central Barstow.  US 466 followed a parallel alignment following "Yermo Rd", the I-15 ROW, and "Old Hwy 58".  The roadway passed through North Barstow.  It was parallel and came within 1/2 mile of US 66, but never intersected with it.  US 91 followed the US 466 routing, turned on 1st Ave, and then turned on Main Street to continue to San Bernardino.

Of course, maps that weren't so fine tuned showed US 466 as following US 66's east-west trajectory to reach Bakersfield, as US 66 turned to the southwest to reach San Bernardino, but there never was any such grand intersection like this.  People would definitely make the connection by using 1st Ave, though, as the family in "Grapes of Wrath" and other "Okies" of course made this connection.

Even in the more modern era, I-40 does not have a direct exit to I-15 north.  So one could not travel from I-40 to old  CA-58 without encountering a stoplight until the modern CA-58 expressway was completed.  Of course now with the modern 58, it's possible and if the rest of 58 were upgraded to a freeway, there would be no problem with extending I-40 to reach I-5.  (With a short multiplex at I-15.)

But there is no rush right now.

Not to go off on subject too much but US 466 is a fascinating weird alignment.  It actually did intersect US 66 but out in Arizona at Beale Street at two different intersections from 1934 to 1969.  In 1934 the route made sense because US 93 had not come south from Glendale Nevada and US 466 was the only US Route over the Hoover Dam....even thought the Hoover Dam was not completed until 1936.  Ironically US 93 was extended over the Hoover Dam also in 1936 leaving US 466 in a huge multiplex with US 91 and US 93 for most it's alignment.  US 93 and US 466 would even end at US 66 until 1965 in Kingman until US 93 was extended to a southern terminus at US 89 near Congress, AZ.  Of course in 1969 California gave US 466 the boot but Arizona did as well which left it completely multiplexed and isolated in Nevada into the early 1970s. 

So basically the current alignment of CA 58 would have made the most sense for US 466 post 1936 even though it wouldn't connect directly to US 66.  It's just amazing to me that so many huge multiplexes and terminus points were allowed to be shared for so long.  You wouldn't ever see anything like this today after the US Route purge in California and current AASHTO policy.

But I digress, since the multiplex with I-15 would be minimal wouldn't be in the interest of Caltrans just to sign the route that way?  Hell they have a million split routes all over the state I'm not sure why a short gap in the route log would upset the system.  Technically Highways like Highway 1 end every time they hit US 101 before another branch start and you have all the CA 190s, CA 65s on top CA 178 routes to show splits exist in the state log book.  Hell I-210 and CA 210 are a good example of an state road eventually being upgraded to an Interstate already in place in California.  The main difference is though that Caltrans can't approval for an I-40 extension to I-5 for whatever reason and they got the go ahead for I-210. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2016, 08:25:11 AM
  Hell I-210 and CA 210 are a good example of an state road eventually being upgraded to an Interstate already in place in California.  The main difference is though that Caltrans can't approval for an I-40 extension to I-5 for whatever reason and they got the go ahead for I-210. 

210 as an Interstate east of Route 57 has still yet to be approved (it was submitted in the late 90s).  Interestingly, Route 15 as an interstate south of I-8 in San Diego HAS been approved but has not yet been signed (pending an interchange reconfiguration at Route 94).

Quote from: TheStranger on March 30, 2016, 12:10:11 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2016, 08:25:11 AM
  Hell I-210 and CA 210 are a good example of an state road eventually being upgraded to an Interstate already in place in California.  The main difference is though that Caltrans can't approval for an I-40 extension to I-5 for whatever reason and they got the go ahead for I-210. 

210 as an Interstate east of Route 57 has still yet to be approved (it was submitted in the late 90s).  Interestingly, Route 15 as an interstate south of I-8 in San Diego HAS been approved but has not yet been signed (pending an interchange reconfiguration at Route 94).

I was under the impression that Caltrans had the okay to put the I-210 signs up once the upgrades were complete?  I haven't been down to San Diego since 2011, they STILL haven't gotten rid of those left side ramps on CA 15?

Quote from: Chris on March 28, 2016, 10:23:11 AM
The current CA-4 extension in Stockton also included a new right-of-way through a built-up area. The Grand Parkway (SH 99) around Houston also ran through an existing neighborhood with trailer homes.

Interesting, the current Google Maps aerial image shows bridgework for a westward extension of the CA 4 freeway under construction, with that work just ending short of the industrial area there.  How far is CalTrans going with this project and what other details on it are available?

Maybe, just maybe the two 'ends' of the CA 4 freeway will someday connect to each other.

:nod:

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on March 31, 2016, 11:25:51 AM

Quote from: Chris on March 28, 2016, 10:23:11 AM
The current CA-4 extension in Stockton also included a new right-of-way through a built-up area. The Grand Parkway (SH 99) around Houston also ran through an existing neighborhood with trailer homes.

Interesting, the current Google Maps aerial image shows bridgework for a westward extension of the CA 4 freeway under construction, with that work just ending short of the industrial area there.  How far is CalTrans going with this project and what other details on it are available?

Maybe, just maybe the two 'ends' of the CA 4 freeway will someday connect to each other.

:nod:

Mike

It's a very limited project - they're extending the viaduct southwest over the railroad to Navy Avenue and removing the Fresno Avenue ramps, so that trucks accessing the port facilities no longer go through the residential neighborhood. The new terminus at Navy Way will be at-grade, and the design seems to be such that they're not planning for any extension further than that.

So far as I can tell, the project does nothing to facilitate traffic between Stockton and Antioch; Charter Way to/from I-5 will continue to be the route of choice for that.

There's a map and a computer generated video of the extension available on the Caltrans website here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist10/environmental/projects/sr4crosstown/index.html

As DTComposer noted it really won't help traffic between Stockton and Antioch. 

However, Tillie Lewis Drive will be improved and a new traffic signal installed at the intersection with CA 4. So if westbound traffic really wanted to, it could take the new extension to Navy Drive, backtrack east one block and then take Tillie Lewis Drive to CA 4.

As for a further extension west, if the roadway continued on its current heading there's a large artificial pond to be crossed which would require a bridge of about equal length to the viaduct being built now.  Of course, this pond does not seem very deep so a new roadway could simply be built on fill. 

Perhaps a more likely alignment would be to have the roadway head south along the empty land between Army Court and the San Joaquin River.  It could then connect to CA 4 near the current bridge over the river.

After posting, I realized that talking about the CA-4 extension in Stockton is drifting a bit from the original topic of CA-58 and I-40.  I found this thread which is specifically targeted at the extension: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12121